From nobody Tue Feb 14 13:39:08 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: plus@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: plus@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 126F11293EC for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 13:39:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.221 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RBl_QTjAFh_7 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 13:39:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8CE012989E for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 13:39:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DAQ08499; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:39:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.37) by lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.199) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:38:55 +0000 Received: from SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.40) by LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:38:55 +0000 Received: from SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.133]) by SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.132]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 13:38:53 -0800 From: Lin Han To: "'plus@ietf.org'" Thread-Topic: Status of PLUS Thread-Index: AdKHCrl4JrKLH926RDCOiY3NGJzHqQ== Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:38:51 +0000 Message-ID: <1D30AF33624CDD4A99E8C395069A2A162C21843C@SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.70.155] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1D30AF33624CDD4A99E8C395069A2A162C21843CSJCEML702CHMchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090202.58A378F8.004C, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.4.133, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 95ce2c9a9dbd2cf12510e7c3c82c20f6 Archived-At: Subject: [Plus] Status of PLUS X-BeenThere: plus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of a Path Layer UDP Substrate \(PLUS\) protocol for in-band management of in-network state for UDP-encapsulated transport protocols." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:39:08 -0000 --_000_1D30AF33624CDD4A99E8C395069A2A162C21843CSJCEML702CHMchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, all Just signed up this list, I knew PLUS has been concluded unfortunately. The idea of PLUS is very useful for the transportation improvement for some= applications that the traditional transport could not support properly. Want to see what is the plan for the group ? Regards Lin --_000_1D30AF33624CDD4A99E8C395069A2A162C21843CSJCEML702CHMchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello, all

 

Just signed up this list, I knew PLUS has been concl= uded unfortunately.

The idea of PLUS is very useful for the transportati= on improvement for some applications that the traditional transport could n= ot support properly.

Want to see what is the plan for the group ?

 

Regards

 

Lin

--_000_1D30AF33624CDD4A99E8C395069A2A162C21843CSJCEML702CHMchi_-- From nobody Sat Feb 18 01:45:08 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: plus@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: plus@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9362C1294D3 for ; Sat, 18 Feb 2017 01:45:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yaG0LABGe5y6 for ; Sat, 18 Feb 2017 01:45:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from virgo02.ee.ethz.ch (virgo02.ee.ethz.ch [129.132.72.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE2E012941D for ; Sat, 18 Feb 2017 01:45:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virgo02.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3vQQ3h0bJzz15MGK; Sat, 18 Feb 2017 10:45:04 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at virgo02.ee.ethz.ch Received: from virgo02.ee.ethz.ch ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (virgo02.ee.ethz.ch [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H7P3lvV37DAy; Sat, 18 Feb 2017 10:45:01 +0100 (CET) X-MtScore: NO score=0 Received: from [192.168.178.33] (p5DEC233A.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.236.35.58]) by virgo02.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA; Sat, 18 Feb 2017 10:45:01 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\)) From: =?utf-8?Q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= In-Reply-To: <1D30AF33624CDD4A99E8C395069A2A162C21843C@SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com> Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 10:45:16 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <91706425-2924-454E-8038-F0BC556DDD9B@tik.ee.ethz.ch> References: <1D30AF33624CDD4A99E8C395069A2A162C21843C@SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com> To: Lin Han X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259) Archived-At: Cc: "plus@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Plus] Status of PLUS X-BeenThere: plus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of a Path Layer UDP Substrate \(PLUS\) protocol for in-band management of in-network state for UDP-encapsulated transport protocols." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 09:45:07 -0000 Hi Lin, thanks for your interest. I can only speak for myself but we are still = working on PLUS. We will update draft-trammell-plus-spec and = draft-trammell-plus-statefulness soon. However we are currently not = driving this work forward in the IETF. I personally think that = developing this in parallel to quic would have been a great deployment = opportunity that we missed now. However, we would like to keep this list open for further discussions = and we are of course happy to receive any feedback/input on the existing = drafts or supplementary work. Mirja =20 > Am 14.02.2017 um 22:38 schrieb Lin Han : >=20 > Hello, all > =20 > Just signed up this list, I knew PLUS has been concluded = unfortunately. > The idea of PLUS is very useful for the transportation improvement for = some applications that the traditional transport could not support = properly. > Want to see what is the plan for the group ? > =20 > Regards > =20 > Lin > _______________________________________________ > Plus mailing list > Plus@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/plus From nobody Tue Feb 28 14:56:56 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: plus@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: plus@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC7A7129415 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 14:56:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O0734vtnXYrM for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 14:56:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from gozo.iway.ch (gozo.iway.ch [212.25.24.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6940012978C for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 14:56:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from gozo.iway.ch (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10E1A340E5F for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 23:56:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ACF/22542.13620); Tue, 28 Feb 2017 23:56:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from switchplus-mail.ch (switchplus-mail.ch [212.25.8.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gozo.iway.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 23:56:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from lukmanier.dynamic.ucsd.edu (account ietf@trammell.ch [169.228.190.98] verified) by switchplus-mail.ch (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.14) with ESMTPSA id 9994917 for plus@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 23:56:35 +0100 From: Brian Trammell (IETF) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B1987338-D9AE-4372-B018-BD5343E583C1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\)) Message-Id: References: <28F27305-3F58-4091-857C-4BD4BEE8093C@trammell.ch> To: plus@ietf.org Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 14:56:32 -0800 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259) Archived-At: Subject: [Plus] Status of PLUS X-BeenThere: plus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of a Path Layer UDP Substrate \(PLUS\) protocol for in-band management of in-network state for UDP-encapsulated transport protocols." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 22:56:55 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_B1987338-D9AE-4372-B018-BD5343E583C1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi, Lin, all, Circling back on these points... > On 14 Feb 2017, at 22:38, Lin Han wrote: >=20 > Hello, all >=20 > Just signed up this list, I knew PLUS has been concluded = unfortunately. In the sense that the BoF failed to come to consensus that a working = group could be formed with the presented scope, due to questions about = the privacy risk / utility tradeoff of a generalized solution to the = problem of replacing implicit interference by path elements with = explicit communication, yes... I would not yet say we've come to a = "conclusion" yet, though. > The idea of PLUS is very useful for the transportation improvement for = some applications that the traditional transport could not support = properly. > Want to see what is the plan for the group ? Stepping back, there are three things I think we wanted out of PLUS: (1) Providing basic measurability and state maintenance for transport = protocols with encrypted headers, and doing it once. The basic header in = draft-trammell-plus-spec does this. You could get the same effect by = adding the same information to some variants of the QUIC public header. = In any case, without a common basic header, the measurability and = statefulness of new transport protocols will have to be considered by = each new transport protocol. draft-kuehlewind-plus-appman is an initial = applicability and manageability statement for QUIC, the manageability = section of which will discuss these issues specific to QUIC. (2) Adding (very) small amounts of information to packets to give = advisory signals to path elements on how the application would prefer = they be handled. Kind of like DSCP, but with end-to-end integrity = protection. The Basic Header in draft-trammell-plus-spec does this for = two bits: L for signaling transport-layer loss insensitivity, and R for = signaling transport-layer reordering insensitivity. One could add more = to the extended header at additional cost. Here, the questions (raised = at the ACCORD BoF for the loss insensitivity bit) are, as I understand = them, about utility for cost: i.e., 1% better aggregate throughput is = not worth twenty additional header bytes per packet. FWIW we're doing = some experiments with in-network handling of the L bit this year. (3) Building a generalized, transport-protocol-independent facility for = communicating arbitrary information from endpoints to the path, or from = the path to endpoints. This is where SPUD started off, and this is what = we showed can work with endpoint integrity protection in = draft-trammell-plus-abstract-mech. This is also where most of the = controversy in the PLUS BoF came from. What I took away from the = feedback at the PLUS BoF is that we need to have a much better idea of = the restricted vocabulary we'd use with such a thing, how these = restrictions can be enforced, and the incremental benefits of that = vocabulary. There=E2=80=99s certainly room for more research on these = points. Cheers, Brian > Regards >=20 > Lin > _______________________________________________ > Plus mailing list > Plus@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/plus --Apple-Mail=_B1987338-D9AE-4372-B018-BD5343E583C1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJYtgAgAAoJEIoSt78L6kajuvMQAJsvSgmPnyOScnxaA5lfoHfi GKxRoHDFb6BWJ5OyKcHZaQ9efDCW11ycG6p8z6Ih03KU7m7vTSdboYqntp1wBdy5 Jc1RnPzojNvQOf3LXKY4LCydOamZ4qiOPy2DLlVSU+3FmDaBqgAcp4ABusiW/E4Y mteVqGB84vs/WDynp9ixsnb+obcvEggNuAh1UpLrkEENdeYnltV/8/Zt0+7dWpvz bmnMG0WOvvjNsNoo62N7iy4TKosGf/BCfvwffx3TFuoKn5ue5Wh2WdwHTzp30yHr eO6aXHV35PZX+iicLaLTrIfuf5/IZppV6quprRmiZdGwiVBg2B/7Sd8X3oBhJHlp c0kBNcTX0H4Tbvog7moRjJrhwyDpRXjNUj4RyHN/TNbnm+7JKDoCBvSForYdjkM8 euVrSRA5OVjc4kirCPGFrvNQU7+2/vRtzATDZYTnR8ngTVcJki3dzwv+411demYX qvT6ZyDHRuV/REqTn1+pJQ2DyXgcixZ1eStnQ0nQ3nHYGwvxKlFSI/pV95JNTJDy gwd3Pn50YobVjvwfLtiIvirh0TPdgxMf/dNLEzVmU9CTqo/2UzjnTIE4StHPbpTF SmuNMmt8n5CF92b9yGwrtxiuwl+KqAjS09qRnCB5GsZM2iQ9OQ0i2h6C3bWHSO7G 7wzHW91VuXzyTgkTfxKF =uKaa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_B1987338-D9AE-4372-B018-BD5343E583C1-- From nobody Tue Feb 28 15:26:22 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: plus@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: plus@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 911AC1297EA for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:26:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7wmlZzEusFTd for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:26:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yw0-x229.google.com (mail-yw0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61F63129435 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:26:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-yw0-x229.google.com with SMTP id v200so20014030ywc.3 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:26:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NQCAif6Z8QD9QJbm20S+ge2pbNlO19W9DAvdVlTakPM=; b=YsJYttbbQ0cpHFKyaoY8IsGuceZCTIM1ECWSty9EqtGJLc9q7uzaL1NcyYxF+lHc50 6ocmloWDeRSU+Jrf+GhnK7vXHzomcwExXMY5FLHy2mtyR4ytqhLyYS4dd/TejlErrGNu WrcJS2cNXfmcjQQwttME/fP+33FMeqRjsl7rIODYIUahu01GVmjafuyltuKtORpOw4we L4fvzIHHuYYKSZJpMhRnWFqeuD0+rjFQNOxz0amQQ/CssvGSCzfxf353Y+2OOygP9N7X puHjnphxwjyG6932JNeGNgzkYEJcDAiQy68boyx9l7eV74zedfU0Hooke2DKDwNECb1f Zfsg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NQCAif6Z8QD9QJbm20S+ge2pbNlO19W9DAvdVlTakPM=; b=URnCeTcmUjKk4MtXloUBm3mhiis0C3erowwDh1H4ZKqOT/ThpkATUIogjWQlWtNPGW E9DXbk9yBwaD6bHr6NnKz7zuUxbEhRu9byUrQo5QBbCWjn2XoTY+Cv4LGyBsk81xA9SQ gW2nDlWJnOp5pVEPrQvOfrzE7gs37S/E4XNTLCg7osFOjPMfrr3Y8CPk8Y8qiwM59D9u qaosavhIqxt8cNfyICmyYkYnLAAcGpetNYvVecamkTCnvNWUQAavfN7pD/WOn73omkZO adFEoAW8fpZVynQd2tqblVOVs5r0OQPoxZH7nfyL8f6zau23sEsdisheoKHDHMuowYsC 1UJA== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lD/XGPPS9g9SYXmRA37ufVCGciZsMvY1xQ5fWV2lF1J5VOk3CZ82kNsSN4kB7JeF70JymQ/fRsJcP5zQ== X-Received: by 10.37.201.196 with SMTP id z187mr1912993ybf.161.1488324378688; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:26:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.234.9 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:26:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.234.9 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:26:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <28F27305-3F58-4091-857C-4BD4BEE8093C@trammell.ch> From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 17:26:18 -0600 Message-ID: To: Brian Trammell Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114d88eae7058405499f8538 Archived-At: Cc: plus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Plus] Status of PLUS X-BeenThere: plus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of a Path Layer UDP Substrate \(PLUS\) protocol for in-band management of in-network state for UDP-encapsulated transport protocols." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 23:26:20 -0000 --001a114d88eae7058405499f8538 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Feb 28, 2017 16:56, "Brian Trammell" wrote: Hi, Lin, all, Circling back on these points... > On 14 Feb 2017, at 22:38, Lin Han wrote: > > Hello, all > > Just signed up this list, I knew PLUS has been concluded unfortunately. In the sense that the BoF failed to come to consensus that a working group could be formed with the presented scope, due to questions about the privacy risk / utility tradeoff of a generalized solution to the problem of replacing implicit interference by path elements with explicit communication, yes... I would not yet say we've come to a "conclusion" yet, though. It's worth saying that I agree with Brian's summary. Spencer, as responsible AD for PLUS --001a114d88eae7058405499f8538 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Feb 28, 2017 16:56, "Brian Trammell" <ietf@trammell.ch> wrote:
Hi, Lin, all,

Circling back on these points...

> On 14 Feb 2017, at 22:38, Lin Han <Lin.Han@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> Hello, all
>
> Just signed up this list, I knew PLUS has been concluded unfortunately= .

In the sense that the BoF failed to come to consensus that a working group = could be formed with the presented scope, due to questions about the privac= y risk / utility tradeoff of a generalized solution to the problem of repla= cing implicit interference by path elements with explicit communication, ye= s... I would not yet say we've come to a "conclusion" yet, th= ough.

It's worth saying that I agree with Brian's summary.

Spencer, as responsible AD = for PLUS

--001a114d88eae7058405499f8538--